Brahma Sutras (Nimbarka commentary)

by Roma Bose | 1940 | 290,526 words

English translation of the Brahma-sutra 3.2.28, including the commentary of Nimbarka and sub-commentary of Srinivasa known as Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and Vedanta-kaustubha resepctively. Also included are the comparative views of important philosophies, viz., from Shankara, Ramanuja, Shrikantha, Bhaskara and Baladeva.

Brahma-Sūtra 3.2.28

< Previous

Next >

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.2.28 by Roma Bose:

“Or like light and (its) sub stratum, on account of being light.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

There is such a relation (of difference-non-differenee) between the individual soul and the Highest Person as well,—on account of the designation of both,—as between light and its substratum. Hence, it is not to be supposed that there is an absolute non-difference (between the two) on the ground of the aphorism: “Hence with the infinite” (Brahma-sūtra 3.2.26),—this is the sense.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

To the objection, viz. There may be a relation of difference and non-difference between the non-sentient and Brahman, but there is no such relation between Him and the individual soul, since in accordance with the aphorism: “Hence with the infinite, for thus (is) the indication” (Brahma-sūtra 3.2.26), the individual soul attains equality with the Infinite, and as such it appears that there is an absolute non-difference between the two,—the author replies:

The phrase: ‘on account of the designation of both’ is to be supplied. The word “or” is meant for disposing of the objection. There is no absolute non-difference between the two, on account of the designation of a natural difference between the two. On account of the designation of a natural difference in the passages: “When the seer sees the golden-coloured creator, the Lord, the Person, the source of Brahma” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.3; Maitrī 6.18), “But then he meditating perceives him who is without parts” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.1.8), “The knower of Brahman attains the Highest” (Taittirīya-upaniṣad 2.1), “He obtains the Person, higher than the high, celestial” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 3.2.8), “Non-knowing, a beast (as it were), and not the Lord”, “He who is omniscient, all-knowing” (Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.1.9; 2.2.7), “Those who abiding the midst of ignorance” (Kaṭha 2.5; Muṇḍaka-upaniṣad 1.2.8), “This soul is free from sins, having true desires, having true resolves” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 8.1.5; 8.7.1, 3; Maitrī 7.7), “He who abiding in the soul” (Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 14.6.7.30^[1]) and so on; and on account of the scriptural statement of a natural non-difference in the passages: “That thou art” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 6.8.6, etc.), “I am Brahman” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.4.10), “This soul is Brahman” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 2.5.19) and so on, there is a relation of natural difference-non-difference between the soul and Brahman.

The author states a parallel instance: “Like light and (its) substratum”. “Light” is the ray of the sun and the like. There is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between light and its substratum, since the former has no separate existence apart from the latter. In answer to the objection: Why is there such an insistence on the non-difference between those two absolutely different objects? the author states here another reason: “On account of being light”. There is non-difference between light and its substratum also because both are equally light; and like that, there is a natural relation of difference and non-difference between the individual soul, the part and the whole (viz. Brahman),—this is the sense. Under the aphorism: “A part, on account of the designation of variety, and otherwise also” (Brahma-sūtra 2.3.42) the relation between the individual soul and the Highest soul has been discussed for the sake of removing the conflict between the two classes of texts; but here it is stated once more for refuting the view of the logicians and the rest who hold that there is an absolute non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman—this is the distinction.

Comparative views of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara:

This is sūtra 29 in Bhāskara’s commentary. They take this sūtra too as stating another prima facie view regarding the relation between Brahman and the individual soul. Hence the sūtra means: just as the sun and its rays are identical, both being light, yet they are taken to be different, so also Brahman and the individual soul.^[2]

Comparative views of Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha:

This is sūtra 27 in their commentaries. They too take this sūtra as laying down another prima facie view regarding the relation between the non-sentient and Brahman. This prima facie view, Rāmānuja points out, criticizes the preceding prima facie view by pointing out that if the non-sentient world be a state of Brahman, as the coil is of the snake, then it will become identical with Him, seeing that the coil is after all nothing but the snake itself. Hence the correct view is that the world is related to Brahman just as the ray is to the sun, i.e. is His form (rūpa) and is different from Him.^[3]

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 29 in his commentary. He continues the topic of the identity between Brahman and His attributes, illustrating it by a second example. Hence the sūtra means: “Just as the sun is essentially light, yet a substratum of light, so Brahman is essentially knowledge, yet the substratum of knowledge (i.e. a knower)”.^[4]